Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
I've nodes 0 and 1. I stopped drbd service on node 1 and then node 0. I started drbd service on node 1. Should this use degr-wfc-timeout or wfc- timeout? This is the output I saw on node 1: *************************************************************** DRBD's startup script waits for the peer node(s) to appear. - In case this node was already a degraded cluster before the reboot the timeout is 60 seconds. [degr-wfc-timeout] - If the peer was available before the reboot the timeout will expire after 0 seconds. [wfc-timeout] (These values are for resource 'drbd1'; 0 sec -> wait forever) To abort waiting enter 'yes' [13580]: Because node 1 was stopped first, it was never a part of a degraded cluster, right? So using wfc-timeout is correct? On the other hand, when I follow the same sequence but start node 0 first, I see: *************************************************************** DRBD's startup script waits for the peer node(s) to appear. - In case this node was already a degraded cluster before the reboot the timeout is 60 seconds. [degr-wfc-timeout] - If the peer was available before the reboot the timeout will expire after 0 seconds. [wfc-timeout] (These values are for resource 'drbd1'; 0 sec -> wait forever) To abort waiting enter 'yes' [2623]: It seems to be using wfc-timeout in this case too. But node 0 was running for a time w/o node 1. So shouldn't degr-wfc-timeout be used in this case? Or have I misunderstood what "degraded" means? I thought it meant "running with only a single node". Am I hitting a difference between stopping a node and "breaking" a node? No. If I break comm before I shut down nodes 1 and 0, whether I start node 0 or 1 first, both are apparently using wfc-timeout. So: When is degr-wfc-timeout used? Thanks... Andrew